A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In the longer term of climatological change, is any 15 year swing truly indicative of long term trends?

Any snapshot's indicative of what you want it to be if you present it the right way.

I want to see a graph based on global warming and cooling for the past 50-100,000 yrs. If that thing shows we're in a perilous position, outside the other swings during the period, I'm convinced. Otherwise, I'll consider myself moderately persuaded, but cautiously cynical about global warming. And I'm not certain that position isn't largely a product of being browbeaten by so many True Believers on this issue that I just accept it for the sake of avoiding a tedious argument.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Forget about the if it is happening question for a second.* Is it necessarily a bad thing? Maybe, without it, we would be heading for a second ice age, and even if we are not, I wouldn't mind a few degress warmer here and there, especially the last few weeks.

*I understand that temperatures have risen slightly over the last 100 years, but my understanding is that it has not be proven that this is a result of human action.

Take that to the "Orthodoxy Free PB." Global warming is a fact and we are going to die. If you don't believe it, go read Sen. Rockefeller's letter to Rex Tillerson telling him Exxon/Mobil had better stop funding research that suggests otherwise. He's a Rockefeller. He can't be wrong.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Forget about the if it is happening question for a second.* Is it necessarily a bad thing? Maybe, without it, we would be heading for a second ice age, and even if we are not, I wouldn't mind a few degress warmer here and there, especially the last few weeks.

The data don't show we're heading for a second ice age right now. And if we are, we have learned ways to avoid it.

Predicting the localized effects are extremely difficult. Cletus's point about the Gulf Stream shows that--we might get colder in some places, offset by greater warmth elsewhere. While you shiver now, and hope for warm air, and in teh summer hope for cooler air, who knows how this plays out.

The reason there is a good concern is because of this uncertainty and because of hte change. There are massive costs just to change, even if they are "good" in certain respects. For example, say one has to move crops north for ideal growing conditions. So does that mean replanting all of the midwest? What about livestock--again, move it out of Texas? Don't forget coastal areas--better move those houses off the beach, and make sure the new ones have better air conditioning. It goes on and on--there's a lot of capital devoted to climate-specific needs of an area that would have to be adjusted. Perhaps the changes would come slowly enough that one can adjust without much cost, but I'm not so sure.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I want to see a graph based on global warming and cooling for the past 50-100,000 yrs. If that thing shows we're in a perilous position, outside the other swings during the period, I'm convinced.

So as long as we don't swing past glaciation down through the middle of Ohio on the one hand, or a contiguous steaming swamp from Rio north to Calgary on the other, it's all good? I would venture a guess that there are points within the swings during that period that we would be fairly disappointed to arrive at, especially if it turned out we got there through our own actions.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I want to see a graph based on global warming and cooling for the past 50-100,000 yrs. If that thing shows we're in a perilous position, outside the other swings during the period, I'm convinced.

S-

You're essentially saying that you cannot be convinced for another 50-100,000 years (less 150 up to, maybe, 1000), as any graph going back that far would be based on multiple layers of assumptions and, when we are talking about a couple of percentage points variation (at most), so high in margin of error as to be generally meaningless.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He's a Rockefeller. He can't be wrong.

And he still calls it Standard Oil. Or grandpa's company.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
S-

You're essentially saying that you cannot be convinced for another 50-100,000 years (less 150 up to, maybe, 1000), as any graph going back that far would be based on multiple layers of assumptions and, when we are talking about a couple of percentage points variation (at most), so high in margin of error as to be generally meaningless.

No. I'm open to accepting assumptions. But I'm not taking some 16 year graph and extrapolating from there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And he still calls it Standard Oil. Or grandpa's company.

Nice. I didn't think of that rich comedic aspect to the thing. Tillerson should write Rockefeller back and advise him he'd be happy to hear his novice scientist's commentary... after Rockefeller divests himself of all assets derived originally from oil money (otherwise known as everything Rockefeller has).

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. I'm open to accepting assumptions. But I'm not taking some 16 year graph and extrapolating from there.

Obviously, a 16 year period doesn't tell us anything about climate change. But, I think that anything generated to show the average temperature (even in 100+ year periods) for the past 100,000 years is going to be conjecture and, ultimately, crap as far as showing trends and that the earth is 2 degrees warmer than long term average. Sure, if all the polar ice melts, science can demonstrate that that hasn't happened since whenever, but trend lines and ranges of normal cliamte fluctuation? I think that's going to take thousands of years to clearly establish.

And I actually think that human activity has had an impact on the environment and that the results are not going to be something that is postive for our way of life.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In the longer term of climatological change, is any 15 year swing truly indicative of long term trends?

I'm sure you can select time periods to make whatever case you want. I'll point out again, though, that this data was meant to be used in planting trees.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The data don't show we're heading for a second ice age right now. And if we are, we have learned ways to avoid it.

Predicting the localized effects are extremely difficult. Cletus's point about the Gulf Stream shows that--we might get colder in some places, offset by greater warmth elsewhere. While you shiver now, and hope for warm air, and in teh summer hope for cooler air, who knows how this plays out.

The reason there is a good concern is because of this uncertainty and because of hte change. There are massive costs just to change, even if they are "good" in certain respects. For example, say one has to move crops north for ideal growing conditions. So does that mean replanting all of the midwest? What about livestock--again, move it out of Texas? Don't forget coastal areas--better move those houses off the beach, and make sure the new ones have better air conditioning. It goes on and on--there's a lot of capital devoted to climate-specific needs of an area that would have to be adjusted. Perhaps the changes would come slowly enough that one can adjust without much cost, but I'm not so sure.

This is not happening over night. The predictions I have seen are a couple of degress over the next 100 years. I don't see the costs of change as being dramatic.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're being stupid and difficult for the sake of being stupid and difficult. I couldn't find the relevant period when I looked quickly at the arbor foundation's sites, but obviously there is one, and what Gattigap just posted suggests that it's 15 years. You seem to think they're cherry-picking, but RT will explain why the coldest day of the winter matters when you're planting trees. The arbor people do, too, if you would bother to check their site.

We just had couple of cold nights here in California that were below freezing and it has wiped out a lot of the citrus crop and artichoke crop. They were the coldest nights in twenty years. So if the chart just goes by the lowest temperature California should be moving to the colder section this year.

If the planet is getting warmer and the polar caps and Greenland are melting how come the oceans are not rising? As far as I know they haven't even risen a millimeter. Has anyone heard different? That the oceans have actually risen? And if not then how could the polar caps be melting?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
this data was meant to be used in planting trees.

So, if the folks who put the map together did some analysis beyond just looking at temperature records, the map should represent the expectation for "average minimum temperature" (whatever that is precisely) for the next 20-30 years. If not, then it would seem that the Dept of Agriculture (or whoever) has failed the American arborist.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Obviously, a 16 year period doesn't tell us anything about climate change. But, I think that anything generated to show the average temperature (even in 100+ year periods) for the past 100,000 years is going to be conjecture and, ultimately, crap as far as showing trends and that the earth is 2 degrees warmer than long term average. Sure, if all the polar ice melts, science can demonstrate that that hasn't happened since whenever, but trend lines and ranges of normal cliamte fluctuation? I think that's going to take thousands of years to clearly establish.

And I actually think that human activity has had an impact on the environment and that the results are not going to be something that is postive for our way of life.

Some freak could model it using data pulld from the ice caps, which I understand are good records of climate during varying periods going back thousands of years. If his math makes sense, hey, I'm in. Otherwise, going ballistic over global warming sounds a lot like the argument some philosopher gave for buying organized religion - "You've got everything to gain and nothing to lose." I think that's an intellectually vacant argument, even if has an admitted logical hook to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No he's not. This is a shitty example for your argument. You necessarily assume that there's no cycle longer than 16 years which would bring temperatures back down. Graphing global warming with a 16 year snapshot is judging the winner at Indy based on one random lap.

Actually, it's more like one centimeter of one random lap.

We get it. You're warning us about global warming. Good. Good. Understood. You have some proof. But this map thing? This ain't it.

Hank was making a different point, one so stupid that you didn't follow it.

To your point that this evidence is not definitive proof that the globe is warming, I plead guilty. The map is certainly consistent with global warming, and I thought it was neat from a graphic perspective.

In my defense, I'll note that your many posts suggesting that lawyers are unimaginative tools have been unaccompanied by scientific proof that lawyers are unimaginative tools. So we'll consider that unproven, too.